KUSI.com - KUSI News - San Diego CA - News, Weather, PPR

Pork Barrel Politics: 14 Republican Members of Congress Vote to Keep their own Farm Subsidies but Fail to Extend Nutrition Aid for Low-Income Families

Prepared by the Office of Congressman George Miller (D-CA)

Fourteen members of Congress with a combined net worth of up to $124.5 million voted last week to continue farm subsidies from which they personally benefit while allowing authorization for nutrition programs for low income individuals and families, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to expire this year.

These members of Congress—each of them Republican—and their spouses have collectively received more than $7.2 million in farm subsidies since 1995.

Since 1973, Congress has always included both farm subsidies and nutrition aid in the Farm Bill, but after an embarrassing defeat on the House Floor late last month, House Republican leadership stripped the entire nutrition title from the new Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act that narrowly passed the House with only Republican support.

The resulting FARRM Act now provides $196 billion in farm subsidies, largely to the wealthiest farmers and large agribusiness firms. In contrast, 47 million

Americans are at risk of losing access to SNAP benefits if the program isn’t reauthorized, as is the case under this FARRM Act.

The 14 Republican members of Congress who voted for the FARRM Act and personally receive government subsidies have received an average of $515,279 in benefits, according to a database maintained by the Environmental Working Group.

However, these figures should be considered a low-end estimate. While commodity, disaster and conservation assistance programs disclose their recipients, federal law currently prohibits the names of recipients of crop insurance premium support from being disclosed. This lack of transparency means that it is impossible to know whether these and other members of

Congress have received subsidies from the crop insurance premium support program, or how much. Because of this reporting loophole, it is possible that, once crop insurance premium support is taken into account, these 14 members have received considerably more than the $7.2 million in handouts this report details.

In stark contrast, SNAP, which each member detailed in this report voted against extending, is limited to families with an income below the federal poverty line ($19,530 for a family of three). In fact, the average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of only $744, and their average monthly SNAP benefit is just $281.

In addition to voting to continue assistance for themselves and other wealthy farmers while failing to reauthorize nutrition programs for the poor, each of these 14 members of Congress voted in favor of the Southerland Amendment, largely credited with sinking an earlier version (H.R. 1947) of the FARRM Act last month. That amendment—which Republicans added to a version of the FARRM Act that would have already made deep cuts to SNAP and cut eligibility for 2 million Americans—would have completely gutted SNAP by giving states large financial incentives to kick families off the program.

It is time for Congress to enact a farm bill that maintains a strong safety net to help families buy food and get back on their feet—not one that provides large subsidies to wealthy farmers and agribusiness while leaving tens of millions of working Americans out in the cold.

The following are profiles of the 14 members of Congress who voted to continue their own farm subsidies while failing to continue nutrition aid for 47 million Americans.

Member Profiles

Each of the following members of Congress voted "Yes" on Southerland Amendment to H.R 1947 to Gut SNAP by giving subsidies to states that cut off families’ benefits and voted "Yes" on H.R. 2642 to provide farm subsidies for themselves while allowing authorization to expire for nutrition programs including SNAP. Total subsidies do not include any possible federal payments for crop insurance premium support programs.

Rep. Robert Aderholt

Republican—Alabama 4th District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $207,426

Net Worth: $506,019 to $5,815,999

Individuals in Alderholt’s home county, Winston County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 4,201 (16% of Winston County’s population).

Rep. Blake Farenthold

Republican—Texas 27th District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $1,205

Net Worth: $9,659,099 to $38,785,999

Individuals in Farenthold’s home county, Nueces County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 68,655 (19% of Nueces County’s population).

Rep. Stephen Fincher

Republican—Tennessee 8th District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $3,483,824

Net Worth: -$1,149,999 to $204,995

Individuals in Fincher’s home county, Crockett County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 3,370 (22% of Crockett County’s population).

Rep. Vicky Hartzler

Republican—Missouri 4th District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $516,000

Net Worth: $2,218,026 to $13,854,995

Individuals in Hartzler’s home county, Cass County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 8,664 (9% of Cass County’s population).

Rep. John Kline

Republican—Minnesota 2nd District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $6,548

Net Worth: $248,009 to $645,000

Individuals in Kline’s home county, Dakota County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 23,736 (5% of Dakota County’s population).

Rep. Doug LaMalfa

Republican—California 1st District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $1,710,385

Net Worth: $1,268,007 to $5,596,000

Individuals in LaMalfa’s home county, Butte County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 27,457 (11% of Butte County’s population).

Rep. Tom Latham

Republican—Iowa 3rd District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $313,776

Net Worth: $2,315,175 to $7,650,167

Individuals in Latham’s home county, Franklin County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 1,100 (10% of Franklin County’s population).

Rep. Frank Lucas

Republican—Oklahoma 3rd District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $40,613

Net Worth: -$264,990 to $1,059,995

Individuals in Lucas’s home county, Roger Mills County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 248 (6% of Roger Mills County’s population).

Rep. Cynthia Lummis

Republican—Wyoming At-Large

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $14,289

Net Worth: $7,252,036 to $30,584,999

Individuals in Lummis’s home county, Laramie County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 5,817 (7% of Laramie County’s population).

Rep. Randy Neugebauer

Republican—Texas 18th District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $4,321

Net Worth: $6,560,080 to $19,129,998

Individuals in Neugebauer’s home county, Lubbock County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 46,408 (16% of Lubbock County’s population).

Rep. Kristi Noem

Republican—South Dakota At-Large

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $503,751

Net Worth: -$464,992 to $674,999

Individuals in Noem’s home county, Hamlin County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 462 (7% of Hamlin County’s population).

Rep. Marlin Stutzman

Republican—Indiana 3rd District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $196,268

Net Worth: $14,019 to $1,082,995

Individuals in Stutzman’s home county, Lagrange County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 2,116 (5% of Lagrange County’s population).

Rep. Mac Thornberry

Republican—Texas 13th District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $29,774

Net Worth: $241,007 to $580,000

Individuals in Thornberry’s home county, Potter County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 28,779 (23% of Potter County’s population).

Rep. David Valadao

Republican—California 21st District

Total Farm Subsidies Received: $185,724

Net Worth: -$30,099,998 to -$1,150,005

Individuals in Valadao’s home county, Kings County, receiving SNAP Benefits: 21,938 (13% of Kings County’s population).

All data on farm subsidies received by members of Congress and their spouses is based on analyses by the Environmental Working Group, which can be found at http://www.ewg.org/release/members-congress-received-238k-farmsubsidies and http://www.ewg.org/news/news-releases/2012/06/28/taxpayerspaid61-million-farm-subsidies-members-congress-families.

All data on members’ net worth is based on information provided in the Center for Responsive Politics’ reporting of lawmakers’ net worth in 2011, which can be found at http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2011.

All data on SNAP recipients by county comes from the USDA Economic Research Service’s SNAP Time Series Data and can be accessed through http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/04/food_stamp_recipients_by_county_an_interactive_tool_showing_local_snap_data.html.

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner: Death, Resignation or Recall

Despite recent efforts to convince Mayor Bob Filner to resign due primarily to claims of sexual harassment, Filner is going nowhere. There are two reasons why Filner will remain Mayor for the foreseeable future. First, he is a fighter. It's a hallmark of his lifetime in politics. He doesn't want to leave and he doesn't believe he should leave, so he won't. The second reason Filner will remain in the Mayor's office is because City law says he can.

Pursuant to the San Diego City Charter – often referred to as the "constitution" of the City – the only circumstances under which a Mayor can be removed from office are death, resignation or recall. In California, City Charters are sacrosanct. A voter-approved charter provides cities like San Diego supreme authority over municipal affairs. In fact, according to the California Constitution, a charter city’s law concerning a municipal matter supersedes state law governing the same topic.

Specifically, the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 3(a) states, "[t]he provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments." Further, the state Constitution specifically provides that absolute authority is granted by a city charter to provide for the removal of a "municipal officer or employee," as well as the officer's "qualifications" and "tenure of office" (Article XI, Section 5(a)).

Unless Mayor Filner drops dead, he's not going anywhere. Since the charter limits the options concerning the Mayor's removal, even if the recent civil lawsuit by a former Filner employee is tried and finds Filner liable of sexual harassment, he can't be removed from office.

All the political posturing in the world will not force Bob Filner from office. No civil lawsuit will suffice. A criminal charge is unlikely. Any charge that fails to put him in state or federal prison, thus revoking his voter registration, is insufficient under the City Charter to boot him.

It's not about due process. It's not about facing his accuser (or accusers). It's not about public perception and it's not really about the law as we generally perceive it. It's not about whether Filner can continue to govern the City. The only thing that determines whether Bob Filner is forced from office is the City Charter.

Mayor Filner has taken resignation off the table. He doesn't appear to be anywhere near death's door. That leaves recall. A recall certainly will affect the day-to-day operations of City Hall. Some politicians who stand to benefit may be willing to put the City in that situation, as well as those who have been most vocal about the Mayor stepping down. However, for those of us with no direct stake in this distasteful situation, a recall may be the most onerous option.

Why the Immigration Bill is Good for Democrats

In order to begin a "path to citizenship" program, which will take about a decade for qualified immigrants once it takes effect, Democrats had to agree to fund $40 billion in border security. Those of us who believe undocumented immigrants who are living, working and contributing to society here in the United States should be awarded citizenship, just as our Anglo ancestors did for more than two centuries, generally don't believe all of that money should be spent for "security."

Some immigration advocates now oppose the legislation. Leaders of Presente.org, the nation’s largest online Latino advocacy organization, took the step of opposing the broader immigration bill altogether, saying in a statement they could not “in good conscience” stand by it if it is also “guaranteed to increase death and destruction through increased militarization of the border.”

However, the legislation now stands a much better chance of passage than ever. And, if it doesn't become law now, it will likely be a minimum of four yours and very possibly longer before Democrats and Republicans come this close to agreeing about immigration reform.

Let's take what we can get now, including the $40 billion to "militarize" the border, and fix it later.

What everyone seems to be overlooking is that Republicans forced the government to not pay it's bills for a time, allowed government to go over the "fiscal cliff," and forced implementation of mandatory across-the-board cuts to government programs through the sequester.

The Republican rationale for these economically damaging efforts that harmed the entire middle class was that they would not support spending unless an amount equal to that being spent was cut from the budget.

Have you heard any similar opposition to spending $40 billion on border security? Of course not.

Republicans are climbing over each other to see who can spend the most money for fences and border guards and other ridiculous "security" measures to show their base voters how tough on immigrants – especially brown ones from the south – they can be.

As of June 24^th, Republicans in congress had a 26% approval rating. Last week, Speaker John Boehner lost control of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Caucus and was unable to prevent them from killing the farm bill, which mostly benefits Republican farmers in the nation's heartland – and in many states that will be home to contested congressional campaigns in 2014.

The farm bill is just one of the many missteps Republicans have made this session that have ended up going against the interests of their own constituencies. Now, with Republicans throwing billions at the border without any concern for offsetting cuts, how can they legitimately make the same argument the next time the Democrats or the President put forward a spending plan? They are in the process of giving away their leverage when it comes to offsetting spending with cuts.

The 2014 congressional campaigns have already begun. The Republicans have bungled relationships with their traditional constituencies, including those who fund their campaigns. Their approval ratings are eight to ten points lower than Democrats and seventeen to twenty points below those of the President. And, there is almost a year for the Republicans can continue to dig themselves a deeper hole before congressional primary elections.

In short, the Republicans are in the process of imploding. They are giving away their credibility on balancing spending with cutting. It's entirely possible that the Democrats in congress can pick up seats in 2014. When that happens, Democrats can cut funding and "demilitarize" the border, while freeing up about $20 billion or so to fill gaps in social programs the Republicans have made over the last two years.

Let's hold our noses and work to get the current immigration bill through the congress. The dividends down the road are enormous.